[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b5290e04-6f29-c237-78a7-511821183efe@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:48:03 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] guarantee natural alignment for kmalloc()
On 3/20/2019 7:53 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:48:47AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Natural alignment to size is rather well defined, no? Would anyone ever
>> assume a larger one, for what reason?
>> It's now where some make assumptions (even unknowingly) for natural
>> There are two 'odd' sizes 96 and 192, which will keep cacheline size
>> alignment, would anyone really expect more than 64 bytes?
>
> Presumably 96 will keep being aligned to 32 bytes, as aligning 96 to 64
> just results in 128-byte allocations.
Well, looks like that's what happens. This is with SLAB, but the alignment
calculations should be common:
slabinfo - version: 2.1
# name <active_objs> <num_objs> <objsize> <objperslab> <pagesperslab> : tunables <limit> <batchcount> <sharedfactor> : slabdata <active_slabs> <num_slabs> <sharedavail>
kmalloc-96 2611 4896 128 32 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 153 153 0
kmalloc-128 4798 5536 128 32 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 173 173 0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists